Should the Germans Have Dropped Their Investigation By Now?

[Holly Goodhead]

So you don't accept his word?

Why would I when he hasn't delivered over 8 months and his position seems at odd with communication from DCI Mark Cranwell, MET Commissioner Cressida Dick, PJ and the Mc's?

[Venturi Swirl]

Why would I when he hasn't delivered over 8 months and his position seems at odd with communication from DCI Mark Cranwell, MET Commissioner Cressida Dick, PJ and the Mc's?

You're under no obligation to accept his word but that doesn't mean he is lying.  There is no reason I can think of as to why he should make such a bare-faced lie.  I therefore choose to take him at his word and would expect you to respect that point of view. 

[Mr Gray]

Why would I when he hasn't delivered over 8 months and his position seems at odd with communication from DCI Mark Cranwell, MET Commissioner Cressida Dick, PJ and the Mc's?

Ctessida Dicck said last month as I recall SY are working very very closely with the Germans. No matter... We all have our views... Wait and see

[Holly Goodhead]

Ctessida Dicck said last month as I recall SY are working very very closely with the Germans. No matter... We all have our views... Wait and see

SY are working with the police in Germany and Portugal.  Why would the head of MET say it is still treating case as a missing person if HCW has concrete evidence MM is dead?

Dame Cressida said that the Met's position had not changed since the summer, when the force said its investigation - Operation Grange - remained a missing person inquiry as there is no "definitive evidence whether Madeleine is alive or dead".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55181357

[Holly Goodhead]

You're under no obligation to accept his word but that doesn't mean he is lying.  There is no reason I can think of as to why he should make such a bare-faced lie.  I therefore choose to take him at his word and would expect you to respect that point of view.

I dont have any problem whatsoever with those who wish to take HCW at his word.  All I'm saying is that 8 months on afaik CB hasn't even been interviewed.  HCW's position also seems to be at odds with positions held by MET, PJ and Mc's. 

We don't know anything about HCW.  He might be some sort of egotistical maniac.  It seems to me he was convinced CB was involved based on his criminal past, the phone call, car re-reg and his pal's revelations and was happy to take a punt by going on a fishing expedition with the appeal. 

[faithlilly]

Exactly because he has no real evidence against CB and was on a massive fishing expedition imo.

Welcome back and I totally agree with your post.

[Venturi Swirl]

I dont have any problem whatsoever with those who wish to take HCW at his word.  All I'm saying is that 8 months on afaik CB hasn't even been interviewed.  HCW's position also seems to be at odds with positions held by MET, PJ and Mc's. 

We don't know anything about HCW.  He might be some sort of egotistical maniac.  It seems to me he was convinced CB was involved based on his criminal past, the phone call, car re-reg and his pal's revelations and was happy to take a punt by going on a fishing expedition with the appeal.

Do you still think he would be in a job if he was a lying egotistical maniac?  As you don’t know the full picture wouldn’t it be sensible not to make such suggestions?

[Venturi Swirl]

Holly, in your experience do police when investigating any crime divulge every last piece of evidence they have to the general public before beinging charges?  Do you think that’s what’s happened in this case?

[faithlilly]

I dont have any problem whatsoever with those who wish to take HCW at his word.  All I'm saying is that 8 months on afaik CB hasn't even been interviewed.  HCW's position also seems to be at odds with positions held by MET, PJ and Mc's. 

We don't know anything about HCW.  He might be some sort of egotistical maniac.  It seems to me he was convinced CB was involved based on his criminal past, the phone call, car re-reg and his pal's revelations and was happy to take a punt by going on a fishing expedition with the appeal.

I made the same point myself some weeks ago. I assume your post will incite the same reaction.

[Holly Goodhead]

I made the same point myself some weeks ago. I assume your post will incite the same reaction.

Assuming he's being quoted correctly, to my mind, he seems to talk in riddles.  He's a prosecutor and therefore reasonable to expect him to have a good understanding of what evidence is required to bring about charges and secure a conviction.  And yet he states:

Mr Wolters said: "I can't promise, I can't guarantee that we have enough to bring a charge but I'm very confident because what we have so far doesn't allow any other conclusion at all."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55224904

If what he has doesn't allow for any other conclusion at all then surely the judges within the German judiciary (trial by judges in Germany) will agree so why not charge CB? 

[Venturi Swirl]

Assuming he's being quoted correctly, to my mind, he seems to talk in riddles.  He's a prosecutor and therefore reasonable to expect him to have a good understanding of what evidence is required to bring about charges and secure a conviction.  And yet he states:

Mr Wolters said: "I can't promise, I can't guarantee that we have enough to bring a charge but I'm very confident because what we have so far doesn't allow any other conclusion at all."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55224904

If what he has doesn't allow for any other conclusion at all then surely the judges within the German judiciary (trial by judges in Germany) will agree so why not charge CB?

I understand it completely.  I refer you back to the case I mentioned earlier.  The only conclusion you could reach was that the inventor had a sexual motivation to kill and behead the victim based on the evidence and the search history on his computer but it still wasn’t enough to ensure the suspect would be found guilty of murder.

[Holly Goodhead]

Holly, in your experience do police when investigating any crime divulge every last piece of evidence they have to the general public before beinging charges?  Do you think that’s what’s happened in this case?

I can't think of another case where a proseuctor has made such damning public statements about a suspect who afaik hasn't even been interviewed.  Why do the public need to know anything including the prosecutor's views?

[Mr Gray]

SY are working with the police in Germany and Portugal.  Why would the head of MET say it is still treating case as a missing person if HCW has concrete evidence MM is dead?

Dame Cressida said that the Met's position had not changed since the summer, when the force said its investigation - Operation Grange - remained a missing person inquiry as there is no "definitive evidence whether Madeleine is alive or dead".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55181357

Ive given the answer many times

[Mr Gray]

Assuming he's being quoted correctly, to my mind, he seems to talk in riddles.  He's a prosecutor and therefore reasonable to expect him to have a good understanding of what evidence is required to bring about charges and secure a conviction.  And yet he states:

Mr Wolters said: "I can't promise, I can't guarantee that we have enough to bring a charge but I'm very confident because what we have so far doesn't allow any other conclusion at all."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55224904

If what he has doesn't allow for any other conclusion at all then surely the judges within the German judiciary (trial by judges in Germany) will agree so why not charge CB?

Everything he says makes perfect sense to me

[Venturi Swirl]

I can't think of another case where a proseuctor has made such damning public statements about a suspect who afaik hasn't even been interviewed.  Why do the public need to know anything including the prosecutor's views?

Holly, could you answer my question please.